1 Comments:

Show me somewhere in the Lanham Act where "parody" is listed as a defense? Are we getting judges today who are too lazy or ignorant to understand the differences among trademark, copyright and patent law? Maybe so, or maybe a few more academics who believe that these are equal but different branches of intellectual property law might consider writing something scholarly to educate the judiciary of this century.Only an "activist" judge would write trademark parody into the law since it is nowhere to be found. Calling it a defense by parody since a judge finds it "funny" isn't really a very good way of applying a statute that does not mention the word parody. Conflating copyright cases and misguided trademark cases about titles to movies with someone trying to USE another's well known trademark to make a dollar off trading off of the well known brand wasn't acceptable in 1910 or 1960, so why is this something to debate now? Have trademark owners so overplayed the dilution card that judges are willing to disregard the trading off card that has been around for a century:'In Florence Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., ., 178 F. at page 75, (2nd Cir 1910) we find a classical statement of the principle: 'It is so easy for the honest business man, who wishes to sell his goods upon their merits, to select from the entire material universe, which is before him, symbols, marks and coverings which by no possibility can cause confusion between his goods and those of competitors, that the courts look with suspicion upon one who, in dressing his goods for the market, approaches so near to his successful rival that the public may fail to distinguish between them."